On Friday, 28 August, The Online Citizen published a report by Fang Shihan on NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan’s speech at the Lee Kuan School of Public Policy. On 29 August, we removed the report from our website after being contacted by Mr Viswa’s assistant. The following is Mr Viswa’s letter to The Online Citizen and our response.
Mr Viswa’s Sadasivan’s letter:
I have asked for the article to be taken off for the following reasons.
First, I agreed to speak at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (something that I committed to two months ago) on condition that it would be a closed-door session i.e. no media coverage (including online media).
Second, when I came to know from a third party a day after my speech that a story was filed for posting on theonlinecitizen.com, I had given explicit instructions that I did not want my speech carried by the media. But after persuasion I consented to it being carried by theonlinecitizen.com on condition that I personally clear and sign-off on the final version. This was agreed to. On this understanding I had asked for changes to be made to the draft that was sent to me, essentially to take out parts that were not adequately contextualised which could result in a skewed reading of what I said at the LKY School on Wednesday, last week. The fact is that I did not get to see the final amended version and therefore did not get the chance to sign-off on it, as agreed, before it went online. This is highly regrettable and it is a breach of the agreement, albeit verbal, and a breach of trust.
This online article does not capture the tone or spirit of my speech and the question and answer session that followed. It failed to capture the context and the many qualifiers that I had presented that is absolutely necessary for the reader to have, to get an accurate sense of what I conveyed in the speech and my motivation thereof. The online report, intentionally or unwittingly, presented my comments in an exceptionally sharp, even belligerent and self-righteous manner. This is unacceptable, naturally. I have no issue standing by whatever I have said or will say in future. However I cannot stand idle and see my comments or intentions misrepresented and misread – it does not serve me or the democratic process any good. Most certainly, I do not wish to become a player in furthering an agenda that is not mine, and something to which I don’t subscribe.
In short, I do not wish for my speech in Parliament nor my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School last week to become incorrectly portrayed or politicised. In fact, it is for this reason that I turned down more than 14 requests from local and foreign media agencies for interviews following my maiden speech in Parliament. Whatever I had to say I said at Parliament and at the Lee Kuan Yew School.
For these reasons I have asked, after careful consideration, for the posting of the article on my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School to be removed.
Thank you.
Viswa Sadasivan
——–
The Online Citizen’s response:
We thank Mr Viswa Sadasivan for his letter.
We would like to express our apologies to Mr Viswa for the miscommunication about letting him “personally clear and sign-off on the final version” of our report. It is not a practice nor a policy of The Online Citizen to do this – unless under very special circumstances.
The miscommunication came about, we believe, firstly because of the above. Following this, it was thought that Mr Viswa’s assistant, who had communicated her concerns about the content of the report with our reporter, had agreed for it to be published after the discussion. We had thought the assistant was given authority by Mr Viswa to make the decision. As it turned out, this was not so.
On Mr Viswa’s other points in his letter, we regret that Mr Viswa alluded to an “agenda” we might have. We have no agenda except, in reporting on events, such as the one where Mr Viswa spoke at, our aim is to report as accurately as we can – as we have always done and will continue to do so. We also find it regrettable that Mr Viswa finds our report “exceptionally sharp, even belligerent and [presented in a] self-righteous manner”. Shihan’s report is none of the aforementioned. It is unfortunate that Mr Viswa holds such a view. We leave it to our readers to decide.
Also, Mr Viswa says he does not wish for either of his speeches in Parliament or at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy to be “politicized”. We do not understand what Mr Viswa means. Even so, we had no intention of “politicizing” either of his speeches, whatever that means. Our aim was solely to relay to our audience, what he had said.
However, after careful consideration of the concerns which Mr Viswa conveyed to The Online Citizen separately, we have agreed to remove the report from our site.
We again thank Mr Viswa for his letter and take this opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment as Nominated Member of Parliament.
We now consider this matter closed.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
Chief Editor
The Online Citizen
—–
Eric on 1 Sep 5.10am expressed it very well and I quote him partially:
“… the Chatham House rules were in force for the event. The rules are practiced around the world, especially in international affairs. This allows all parties in the forum to present their most honest opinions without fear of attribution (and retribution). Depending on the newspaper policies and agreement with the organizers, the journalist may report the event, but he or she cannot attribute quotes to individuals. In this instance, given the thrust and content of TOC’s article, Chatham House rules were breached. Hence the issue is one that concerns appropriate ethical, professional conduct. Even if the subject matter is something less controversial or Mr. Sadasivan has not made the request, TOC is still obliged to take it off the website.”
I suppose the Chatham House rules give the exception where a media may be allowed to quote a speaker if the speaker gives permission for a specific part of his speech or the whole of his speech or an edited version of his speech to be reported by a particular media.
As the Online Citizen explains, “It is not a practice nor a policy of The Online Citizen to do this [to let the speaker “personally clear and sign-off on the final version” of Online Citizen's report] – unless under very special circumstances.”
In the case, the Online Citizen reporter apparently felt that it is more worthwhile to release the speech of Viswa than to follow the usual practice of not letting the speaker personally sign off and approve an edited version of the speech before releasing it to the public. So this should be consider as falling under one of those “special circumstances”. So the reporter apparently agreed to the terms set by Viswa. (the reporter could have chosen the other path of not reporting the speech of Viswa if he/she insists on the usual practice of not letting the speaker “sign off and approve” his report before releasing to the public).
So if the terms of the speaker were not adhered to, then the Chatham House rules remain applicable, which means the speech of Viswa should not be released to the public.
Of course due to the reported miscommunications and misunderstandings, the speech seemed to have been wrongly released, and the mistake was rectified with the removal of the speech.
Should Viswa be faulted for issuing those terms and conditions for the release of his speech by Online Citizen?
I think Viswa has no obligation to break away from the Chatham House Rules. The act of him allowing the Online Citizen and not other media to release his speech (though under certain conditions) is a gracious act, which should be appreciated. It is a gracious act because there is no obligation for Viswa to break the Chatham House Rules.
Viswa has the RIGHT to remain under the working of the Chatham House Rules, which is, that his speech (whether part or whole) is not to be released by the media.
We need to respect the RIGHT of Viswa to the Chatham House Rules.
We need also to respect and follow The Chatham House Rules.
And if the Chatham House Rules are to be set aside under a new set of terms and conditions, then the Chatham House Rules can be ignored ONLY IF those new set of terms and conditions are adhered to.
When those new set of conditions are not met, then the Chatham House Rules remain, which means the media is not to publish the speech of any speaker or quote any speaker .
Dear Observer(SG-HK);
it’s always good to have your level-headed views.
Rereading throught the Article and the Comments again, i am in full concurrence with Eric #195 who had given us a very comprehensive analysis of the Events(speeches made by VS) and the relationships of his(VS) appointment as NMP with the Regime and the People. Eric has also given us many of his well thought opinions.
Up to this point, I am comforted by the fact that VS had raised Issues of significant relevance to the People and the Country. Be it that he is suspected for his political(party) leaning, i will credit him for having done something that no other parliamentarians, be they Elected Opposition Members, Riding on Coattail and or Backdoor Entry PAP Members, NMPs or the Others had ever raised.
With his Response in this Thread with declaration of his neutrality between the Ruler and the Citizenry, i feel he(VS) has sincerity, again he may still be suspected of wayang(acting), however, i will give him the benefit of doubt and the time for him to prove his integrity. Dare i say, i will not regret should development(s) moves in the opposite of my belief(in VS) and wishes.
In an issue where and when no concrete result has been established, i think it is only fair to discuss subject matters in calm and less emotional spirit and it is best that we could agree to disagree in our friendly exchanges here and elsewhere of course.
patriot
Dear Patriot,
Been a while since I last visited TOC. Thought it was timely to catch up. Like you, I am in total agreement with Eric’s comment. He made it easier for many to understand the underlying issues (if we call it one to begin with).I too will give VS a benefit of a doubt and it will be great to see that he lives up to his maiden speech. Time will attest to this.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company: http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml
Check out the clients list :
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports
Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr Heng Chee How, Minister of State, Prime Minister’s Office
Mr Lim Siong Guan, Chairman, Economic Development Board
Mr Leo Yip Seng Cheong, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Manpower
Mr Tan Boon Huat, Chief Executive Director, People’s Association
Mr David Conner, Chief Executive Officer, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation
Dr Olaf Duebel, Managing Director, Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd
Mr Michael Denoma, Group Executive Director & Chairman of Consumer Banking, Standard Chartered Bank
Ms Lien Siaou Sze, former Senior Vice President, Hewlett-Packard Services, Asia Pacific
Major-General Lim Kim Choon, formerly Chief of Air Force, Republic of Singapore Air Force
Brigadier General (NS) Tay Lim Heng, Chief Executive, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
No prize for guessing why he asked his speech to be removed.
176) Papz
“Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company:
http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml
Look out for the clients list. It speaks for itself. ”
So he IS with the PAP all the time..I was ‘shocked’ to observe the list of his clients….most of them are pappies! He is ‘funded’ by them?
So, what can we expect from this ‘Gentleman’?
I don’t believe this !
We were ‘fooled’ into thinking that he spoke our language!
Thanks to TOC, without the above issue, otherwise, this wouldn’t have come to light.
Many singporeans are thinking that he is ‘God-send’ , now we know that he is a PAP ( faithful) sent to divert us totally from more serious issues.
So, most of you are right, this is a’ Wayang’ and he is the lead actor (out from the horse’s mouth). These NMP’s have lost my trust completely, from now on, no matter what they say, we will know that it is just another ‘ drama’ scripted & being staged by the the ruling party.
Wow, lky is a genius!
A Politician need to show that he is.
Talk can sound nice.
Words can read nice.
Its ACTION that will prove a Politician how good is he by walking the talk.
I am waiting to see him in Action at hong lim .
But will he ever do so, that is the question.
/// 158) OriginalResonance on August 31st, 2009 1.19 pm
Voila! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet him and you may call him Viswa. :) ///
Ah, alliterations aplenty – and artistically articulated also. Apt, accurate, authentic and absolutely awesome…
Some people give half of their wealth away to the poor, some others give 90% of their wealth away. Shall we fault the person who gave half his wealth to the poor for not giving 90% of his wealth to the poor?
——————————————-
If Viswa is so concerned about his business, he could have made a PAP-friendly speech instead of what he has spoken in the LKY Sch of Public Policy. Surely even without any media reporting, the PAP would know what was spoken in that closed-door event, and surely Viswa could have thought about the possibility of a risk of loosing some of his clients (unless it is one big conspiracy or Wayang).
If Viswa thought that he has made a mistake in his Parliamentary speech for cuasing discomfort to some members of PAP, he would have made a PAP-friendly speech in the LKY Sch of Public Policy instead of what was spoken there.
And Viswa would not explicitly state in this public media that he still stand by what he has spoken in both the Parliament and at the LKY Sch of Public Policy.
Surely he would know that it is likely the govt and his clients would know what he said here and what he said at the LKY Sch of Public Policy. But he continue to stand by what he said.
There is no need for us to expect him to be martyred. We should respect him for doing what he can within his limitations and for taking various risk 9including some degree of business risk).
Different persons have different limits in the way they balance between promoting personal/family welfare and promoting social/political well-being.
(e.g. some people gives half of their wealth away to the poor, some gives 90% of their wealth away. Shall we fault the person who gave half his wealth to the poor for not giving 90% of his wealth to the poor?)
——————–
Most of us are either not able or not willing to do what he has been doing. So let us not be so quick to cast our stones onto Viswa.
——————–
Unless there are compelling evidence, we better not jump into conclusion and blacken his character or motive. Otherwise we may wrongly “kill” a man if that man has good motive to promote social-political well-being.
Let us observe him over a period of time. Give him time.
————-
Again, we need to respect the RIGHT of Viswa to operate under the Chatham House Rules.
He can choose to be gracious by forfeiting that RIGHT, but there is NO OBLIGATION for him to forgo his RIGHT.
We should not criticise him for not forgoing his RIGHT if we recognise that he has such a RIGHT.
Think about it: if someone can be faulted for not giving out his right, then a right is not really a right – if a person has a right, then that right is something which a person cannot be faulted for exercising that right.
I admire Viswa for going as far as he did. His speech shocked PAP because it has substance. Guess you can’t expect immediate results on these things but I am sure some of members in the parliament, especially the good ones, would ask themselves if they are going the right direction.
For those who criticize Viswa for not doing enough, why don’t yourselves do something?
politician is part of culture of every country.
politician is part of life concerning everyone issue from top to down towards future.
politician is about justice, truth, fairness and openness.
to top of all above, politician is NOT WHAT PAP IS RUNNING AT THE MOMENT.
TO set the record straight: Viswa spoke on two occasions — once in Parliament when he made his maiden address and the second time, at the LKY School of Public Policy.
For his views in Parliament on the Pledge, which, I feel, many of us support, he was taken to task by LKY. Was the old man justified? That’s up to the people to decide. He has been right many times, but surely, he cannot be right all of the time.
At the LKY School, Viswa spoke, among other things, about the timidness of the MSM in not being more vigorous in their reporting. He could be reasoning out that a more independent MSM would provide for better development of democracy.
That could be a matter of opinion — but who knows, hitting out at the powerful MSM could be construed as libel, defamation and what have you.
For sure, Viswa appears to have kicked opened a nest of hornets. Let’s see how he continues — many will be waiting to see how he performs and what he says the next time round. Both the public and the PAP.
@Eric
The issue to me, and maybe others here, is not so much about the agreements Viswa had with LKY School or this website or whether the TOC was right or wrong; the issue to me, was that Viswa choose to embargo and withdraw the article instead of clarifying or correcting the inaccuracy or misrepresentation which he spoke vaguely of.
A politician lives and dies by his credibility – part of this credibility is the conviction to stand by one’s words, and the ability to stand up to public scrutiny.
Can TOC please delete my earlier post, – - html gone wrong – - Thanks.
I have not heard of such a thing as the ‘Chatham House Rules’ and I am thankful that some have taken the initiative to share it here. I will therefore reassess my position and perhaps give some leeway to VS for the position he is in.
Thanks to all, especially Observer (SG-HK) & Eric for providing a more rational view to the issue.
My hope is for VS to follow through on his brave words. As things stand, I am still skeptical over what an NMP can do. The limitations are clear for all to see and it is very difficult, even for those who support him, to do anything about it. They cannot vote for him nor can he say he represents their views.
When push comes to shove, the government will say it has the mandate to decide that its view is the view of the people, while comments like those of VS are nothing but his own. This is what LKY has done to VS’s comments. Therefore all this will come to naught, just like I have always said it is and will be.
I will heed the numerous calls to give VS time but my hope is for the real opposition to learn a thing or two from this episode, one of which is to identify issues concerning the people and to bring them out into the open for the government to address them. Most of all they must stand by their conviction to extract full accountability from the rulers.
@Observer (SG-HK)
What we see of Viswa are the words he speaks and the manner which he carries himself. Which so far constitutes of one big bang and a whimper after. It might be too early to write him off, but I think that his choice of actions were quite unfortunate.
As for the matter of the 500 words limit – your exact words were “By the way, TOC you have breached your 500 word limit moderation rule by allowing VS full comment to be posted in a single go.”
What you wrote was wrong given the posting guidelines on the website states clearly that postings above 500 words were subject to approval, as opposed to being not allowed at all. The point of my earlier comment was to highlight this factual error.
Thanks to “Observer (SG-HK),” “patriot,” “Chatham House Rules forbid the release of the speech,” gemami and several others for your gracious remarks, I deeply appreciate it.
The issue of whether Mr. Viswa Sadasivan is a coward, a government mouthpiece or both keeps cropping up in this forum.
Some feel that he is a sell-out because (1) he enters the political arena as a NMP, and (2) that his clientele is heavily government-based. Some even feel that as authentic reflection of his political fervor, he should use Hong Lim Park as the rightful platform.
I have talked about (1). That criticism should be directed at the incumbent party and all those who are complicit in this, including the non-PAP MPs. (I don’t fancy the term Opposition at all – if we pay closer attention, it’s a label that the media and the incumbent party tag other parties to reduce their legitimacy. These parties do not oppose Singaporeans at all; they offer an alternative voice, albeit a rather subdued one.)
Instead, let’s work this through together, starting with the Hong Lim Park option. In terms of reach and efficiency, which option will serve Mr. Sadavisan’s purpose best to reach more Singaporeans? In terms of legitimacy, does speaking up as an NMP or speaking up as a member of the public in Hong Lim Park lends more credibility? Furthermore, which is more daunting? Speaking up in Hong Lim Park, or to move a motion in the Parliament where his every word and action are duly archived and scrutinized by us and by the authorities? (In fact, how many NMPs have moved a motion? I believe he’s either the first or one of the few to do so.) Which needs more effort and more courage?
Next, let’s look at his clientele base. I completely agree that his clientele base may be more worrisome than impressive. However, I also cannot just conveniently ignore the large private corporations like BMW, HP, KPMG and OCBC that his company serviced as well. (Seriously, one hardly counts OCBC as pro-establishment, especially for folks in the know.)
Furthermore, it is also in the nature of the business of strategic communications to be sought after by large organizations. What organizations would seek professional advice at that level? How many organizations of that size and stature, private and public, exist in Singapore? Let’s think a little deeper about it.
Furthermore, from another point of view, who would you want to be speaking for Singaporeans in the Parliament? One who has no clue about the inner workings of the government, especially senior leadership’s thinking on communication and public engagement, or do you want someone who has swum in the deep ends with the sharks? From a purely strategic perspective, the answer is obvious.
Next, I don’t want a martyr. I want someone who is alive, understands that political engagement is a marathon and not a sprint, and knows to choose and fight worthy battles and not engage every skirmish. I want someone who knows the system, has worked in the system and willing to change the system from within. We are all too familiar with what happened when change not only comes abruptly and unthinkingly, but also externally. Look at how USSR crumbled in 1989. Look at how Indonesia crumbled during the last financial crisis.
I’m acutely aware that to a large extent it’s my personal preference for this brand of change, but I have also stated my reasons why I think it is too harsh, too foolhardy to expect Mr Sadasivan, a veteran observer of Singapore’s political history, to simply ape strategies of other political parties or political activists.
And yes, I am very concerned about his close government contacts and his involvement in several government forums too (e.g., he was also in the Government Parliamentary Committee for Defence and Foreign Affairs as a Resource Panel member). However, to simply brand him as a government mouthpiece just because of that connection is, may I dare say, somewhat one-dimensional.
Some people move the world by being in the forefront, lending the charge, providing a voice and personality to the movement. Others work quietly behind the scene to effect change. Both are admirable, but right now, by legitimizing one way over the other, we are privileging one over the other. Can we surely say at this point in time which method, and only one method, works best for Singapore?
We should watch Mr. Sadasivan carefully, but at the same time, mindful that he is stepping out, putting his reputation on the line and subjecting his personal life to scrutiny. (Just look at how we jump at his professional CV). The scrutiny is necessary and no one, including our political leaders, should be placed on a pedestal. I am all for that level of scrutiny.
Before we burn Mr. Sadasivan at the stake for one singular move, let’s take a step back, suspend our criticisms for the time being and monitor if he will remain authentic to his cause.
Sincerely,
Eric
[i] oleoleole on September 1st, 2009 11.08 am
Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company: http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml
Check out the clients list :
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports
Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr Heng Chee How, Minister of State, Prime Minister’s Office
Mr Lim Siong Guan, Chairman, Economic Development Board
Mr Leo Yip Seng Cheong, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Manpower
Mr Tan Boon Huat, Chief Executive Director, People’s Association
Mr David Conner, Chief Executive Officer, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation
Dr Olaf Duebel, Managing Director, Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd
Mr Michael Denoma, Group Executive Director & Chairman of Consumer Banking, Standard Chartered Bank
Ms Lien Siaou Sze, former Senior Vice President, Hewlett-Packard Services, Asia Pacific
Major-General Lim Kim Choon, formerly Chief of Air Force, Republic of Singapore Air Force
Brigadier General (NS) Tay Lim Heng, Chief Executive, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
No prize for guessing why he asked his speech to be removed.[/i]
what Viswa did before he was even norminated by the pap as nmp was his past records with the above companies..mr VISWA is a brilliant stragistist he know his way aroun
unfortunately mr VISWA is also a DECENT man who lived amon us the commonor..he is just reprentin us the fellow singaporeans in his maiden speech in the house of parliament, he didn’t have any ill intentions of challengin the olegheezer @ all…it just that as usual leekuanyew just waltz in with gunblazin gungho attitute without even consultin the 3 wisemen who is no longer livin or aroun..P.S.. if anybody think the 3 wisemen is the prataman/senileminister/and the holy prince..than singapoorium is finished..habesh………
mr VISWA bein a common charimakan orang have to do some self survival to protect his ricebowl..we wouldn’t want him to be another the belated honourable jb jeyaratnam..would we?
and as eric pointout..mr VISWA is smart he used the Chatham House Rules to be protected in ANY event….
Eric, what a rational mind!
It couldn’t have been put better.
Dear Eric,
You made some very persuasive arguments – I’ll hand that to you.
You questioned, “who would you want to be speaking for Singaporeans in the Parliament?”, and then cited your preference for one who is able to keep himself alive over a martyr. You are more willing to place your hope on one who works silently behind the scene.
I get a strange feeling reading your comments. If only more Singaporeans exercise this level of mature thinking towards our Alternative Representatives (I stand corrected for using the term ‘opposition’), then I think we can expect to see blue skies over the horizon soon.
Unfortunately, we are not quite there yet. In fact we are still very close to where we started. I therefore have to question what your persuasions have achieved. Surely they must all translate to something. What is it that we want it to translate to? Are we going to be dependent upon the NMPs from now on? What can the NMPs do? I mean, what can they REALLY do?
If the comments here is any mean of measurement to go by, I must say that the impression here is that they can do nothing – especially when someone like MM is still alive and kicking. It is sad but it is the truth. Even if MM were to leave soon, the MSM, under the collective stranglehold of the PAP, will continue to play the role that MM had been playing – the moderator, corrector and author of Singapore’s history and interpreter of policies, rules and regulations.
I can give VS the chance he needs to prove himself but I can never give the chance to the NMP position that he is using. It stifles alternative representation.
I think conspiracy theories do not help this discussion to go forward, so please stop referring to Viswa’s client list. There are only so many major companies in Singapore, so it is not surprising that “these firms” appear in the list.
The Chatham House Rule reads, “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed”.
In another words, TOC is free to use the speech as long as it does not attribute the speech to NMP Viswa Sadasivan. I don’t think this issue has anything to do with his NMP status at all.
No wonder we all deserve a regime under LKY
Just look around the sacrasm post posted here. If you’re so good, so darling, why not stand out and protest openly.
Dear AC,
Thanks for a second clarification. Let’s put it this way, I have my views and I do respect your views as an individual. I am very aware of this rule set as I was one of the many posters who did post comment that has breached this limit in multiple occasions on other articles published and was told to repost it in multiple parts. Personally, I do respect this house rules (as the owner of this site is still TOC and they have every right to selectively approve of any moderation rule set). However, I still stand-by my opinion and view it as “selective” approval process. The same “selective process” had been played out in this clarification letter to inform readers why VS request the retraction of the published article. To me, I see an important missing link (not disclosed here) after reading through both replies thoroughly and took the pain to first understand the basics of “Chathum House Rule” before even penning my comment.
What really transpired between TOC reporter and VS assistant? Did TOC reporter make sure that VS assistant was authorized to give the final approval (it seemed to me an assumption was made ~ whether it was deliberate or an oversight only TOC reporter can attest to it)?
As much as I appreciated and supported TOC since I began commenting here a year ago, IMHO their effort is laudable given most of them are on part time basis with no funding at all. However, at times some articles published here only revealed half truth (i.e. a single side of the coin) of the story. I do take issues with what I deemed as responsible and impartial journalism. If we are being vociferous in condemning highhandedness and shoddy bias MSM reporting and wanting to advocate better accountability and transparency, true democracy, support for unconditioned human rights, freedom of speech & expression, and all good values for the betterment of this tiny nation…etc, I think before we cast a stone on others for not upholding these good values that I believe a majority of us here and Singaporeans out there at large are trying hard to spread the words, let’s put into practice what we tried so hard to preach.
Simply put, walk the talk as many like to coin this phrase. What credibility is there if one does not practice what one preaches? How different are you to the perceived MSM and the likes when your mission value has been distorted by your own “bias” actions?
You can say I am nip-picking, but as I have said we are all humans of different perspectives and values. Real democracy has a price to pay and a value to uphold. We are far from being a nation of people who truly understand what democracy is. If we maintain the same mindsets and see things with tainted glasses with hasty judgment and followed with blind faith, it will take years before we get there (if we get there).
As for my view of VS on both his speech (including his closing rebuttal at parliament…etc), I had made it quite cleared, as I do not believe at moment we can come to any judgment just based on two events. I can only wished that he continues to live up to his believes and hopefully run for office someday. I am impressed thus far by what he had delivered publicly (at face value) and looking forward to hearing more of him in future. As to his past (as studiously published by concerned posters), don’t we all have a past? What’s important is looking forward, are we on the right track? Surely, if given a chance to vote, we will not give away our precious votes to someone that we do not support their notion brought forth, don’t we?
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
217) irobot on September 1st, 2009 2.03 pm ,
no wonder he relented and step backward. yet to prove whether he is with public and this ‘clients list’ group.
time will tell!
Gemami (#219),
I completely agree with you about the NMP scheme. We are caught in a quandary – the NMP scheme bastardizes and ridicules the democratic process, but at the same time, it provides the avenue for (some) good men and women to enter the political arena without subjecting them through the unfair election system.
We won’t see the likes of Siew Kum Hong if the NMP scheme never materialized or that it suffered a stillborn in its inception.
And you’re spot-on when you say that we should give Mr. Sadasivan an opportunity to prove his cause and calibre, but we should constantly remind ourselves that the NMP scheme is an insidious strategy to deter Singaporeans from truly challenging the incumbent through elections.
And I agree with your assessment of the mainstream media. But I also want to stress that the journalists are not a monolithic whole too. Many have independent and critical minds, but unfortunately are constantly stone-walled. I recall back in the 2006 GE, I know journalist-friends who were called ugly names by incumbent leaders, accusing them as sympathizers of other political parties. There’s only so much you can push the envelop before you’re handed the pink slip. To some extent, I admire those who stay on to fight a good fight, or rather, slip in a slap or a karate chop once in a while. :)
How to change Singapore?
Singapore’s political landscape will only when the majority of the heartlanders feel it’s time to change. Right now, the incumbent still enjoys a stronghold at the grassroots.
Besides the two non-PAP MPs, my sensing is the political alternatives are not working the ground sufficiently. I’m not saying that’s their fault. Without the resources and manpower, it’s almost impossible to project one’s influence, to gather feedback, to extend assistance (and favors, depending how you see it) to engage and convince the heartlanders that they are a viable alternative to the incumbent.
If their engagement with Singaporeans remain in cyberspace or within the educated, little will shift in their favor. If their actions are limited to manifestos, nothing will change. Politics is all about resource mobilization, and you cannot mobilize support if you don’t get your hands dirty. Look at how Barack Obama made use of grassroot organizations, it’s a classic.
Singaporeans, being a pragmatic lot, also need to see concrete change, even if the change is only a minuscule improvement. But if the political alternatives are willing to get their hands dirty now, and I mean right now, and go deep in the trenches of our heartland, there’s a possibility that things may turn around. I believe Singaporeans are a reasonable lot. If they see continual effort and good intentions, they are more willing to place a bet.
Unless we want to be like Japan, to just wait for the incumbent to screw up big time, (way bigger than MSK or the current financial debacle), then things may shift towards the political alternatives. When that happens, it’s not because the political alternatives have become better, but because heartlanders are finally fed up. The danger will be, the political alternatives may still lack the calibre to govern the nation.
At that point, we’re truly screwed.
Sincerely,
Eric
VS if you read this, I think you did the right thing.
I have very little interest in the things that you are passionate abt, and so skim thru reports on you and what you say. But when I skimmed thru the TOC report, my heart skipped a beat. And I didn’t think much of you.
I now know that it was a balls-up.
For those who call him ball-less — hey why are you posting anon? If you don’t have the balls to speak out publicly, you have no right to criticise him.
Anyway, an agreement is an agreement as another poster has written.
For those TOC fans, you may want to ask the circumstances under which it came to the conclusion that VS’s assistant had given approval and that she had the authority. You may want to know if TOC passed the test of reasonabless or whether it was negligent or reckless.
Otherwise, let’s move on.
Oh before I forget, TOC. I hope that you will accept that there are people out there (self included) who think TOC has become politised. We may be wrong, but the perception exists. And we believe that based on what you publish, a reasonable person can decide that we are reasonable in our view.
We Singaporeans are a pampered and lazy lot. Happy to sit at our computers and spew our views without lifting a finger to shift our thoughts into action. And even in saying what we do, the majority of us hide behind our fancy pseudonyms. On what leg can we stand to criticize anyone? I even wonder how many of us really and truly want change. And if we do, let’s stand up and actually demonstrate that we do. By now, reading all the comments, there should be so many opposition parties in the making.
We are so wishy-washy, blowing hot and cold. And here is one man amongst us who stood up and spoke, whose views are not cloaked in anonymity. If we cannot even begin to appreciate that first step that one amongst us has taken, then I’m afraid we have no hope. Better just continue to have our hands held, be led, enjoy the material benefits and comforts, sit pretty in the Bubble. Once in a while we can throw a tantrum – we have cyber space for that.
Viswa should quit as NMP and join the opposition! What a waste for him to be NMP! If he is elected as an MP, he do not have to ‘kowtow” to PAP!
Now we get a clearer picture of NMP…. they are elected by papies not us.
What’s the point you go to a “close door” speech and don’t allow the media to publish the speech content… catch no balls!!! ??? or may be he has no balls…. haha
You can bet States Times will be lapping it up if the speech is pro-PAP ideals, and that will be ok even if out of context.
We want clever people to live in this stupid place? Think again!
I think the heat is too hot on him. Isn’t it so? He needs time and space to cool off. Is that not so? And I think he doesnt want to be a tool of TOC. Is that not so?
The fact that this had to happen reflects badly on the garment.
In a country where there is democracy, not democracy aspired,
where fair comment is allowed, nay encouraged, Viswa’s two
speeches would not have batted a single eyelid.
It is really sad that in self-proclaimed democratic Sinkapoor
anyone without a good word to say about the garment has to
constantly look over his shoulder for fear of being victimized in
some way or other.
Viswa is just your average citizen voicing his concerns about
what he sees as things going wrong and asking the garment to
put them right. Nothing wrong, right? Wrong! In Sinkapoor you’re
expected to “sit down and shut up” if you have nothing good to
say about them. Such is the climate of fear built up over many
decades of according “special treatment” to detractors and
dissidents that our instinct for self-preservation is honed to a
fine edge. There is no need for ob markers as we are self-
censuring ourselves to death!
“Viswa should quit as NMP and join the opposition! What a waste for him to be NMP! If he is elected as an MP, he do not have to ‘kowtow” to PAP!”
He owes PAP a living lah. He knows it. He will never join opp party. I bet my Sparky’s dog food on it. He kowtow? My goodness he wanted to hold balls but didn’t do it as he expected. :<
wah mr Viswa Sadasivan i think i are very good in talking.
too bad you are not a lawyer.
if you are lawyer, people want to sue you also difficult to win you.
i think there is a very very famous lawyer that sue people who anyhow say things few years ago also will lose to you. forget his name. very famous one.
because you use heart to talk.
if there are a very good lawyer like you that can help ngos to fight court case when they are sue, then singapore will be a even more democratic society.
happiness, prospersity and progress for us.
#224,
“Besides the two non-PAP MPs, my sensing is the political alternatives are not working the ground sufficiently. ”
I cannot disagree with you. This is what I feel as well.
To be honest, living in hougang, I have never met a WP member or any opposition member walk up to me to chat. I say again, NEVER.
I dun know what these people are doing.
Opposition parties all over the world have progressed recently.
sigh….
Maybe, it makes sense to import new citizens with better genes? like more creative , garang and able?
Hi Eric,
“Many (journalists) have independent and critical minds, but unfortunately are constantly stone-walled” : Eric.
The most unfortunate and sad thing about Singapore is that we have enough talents to hold our own but yet chooses to confined them into quarters that serve to entrench the stranglehold on power of an elite group of people.
The same model is transplanted in every government institution including the entire civil service – the latter geared more toward a PAP service than a civil one. What is even worse is that those independent bodies that are supposed to uphold justice and equality are also given in to adopting this model of serving the PAP elites more than the people. Examples are our court of law, our police and particularly, our news mediums.
I agree that change can come about if our heartlanders decide so but I will stop short of being too over optimistic. There are the many PAP tentacles to content with, as mentioned above. For me, the most telling ones are the ridiculous re-drawing of electoral boundaries, the threat of defamation suits and the distortions of facts by our MSM.
However, you did mention an excellent point – the role of the grassroots – and using it to lend better reach to the heartlanders. It is sad, very sad, that the alternatives are not doing as much as we hope they would.
Our hopes rise with every election only to be killed of immediately after. They really need to review their outreach programs. As you have commented, Singaporeans can see through honesty and sincerity, and will not shy away from giving support to those who fall into these descriptions.
But you know what? I still get the feeling that we could just end up like Japan before we start to see changes. It may already be too late for regrets now.
Lky has finally made a’ great blunder’ by introducing Mr Viswa as a NMP to Singaporeans. Perhaps he isn’t aware of the ‘damage’ he has done to his ‘Dynast’y'! Far-sighted & yet ‘slip’ of the mind?It is unfortunate that he failed to realize that even an elephant can slip & fall!
By providing the exposure(platform) for Mr Viswa, he has unknowingly ‘ thrust’ Mr Viswa into the ‘limelight’ where Mr Viswa ‘conquered’ the hearts of most, if not all Singaporeans with his Maiden Speech! Yes, it is ‘Love at first sight’ -here to stay for a long long time. He shot to popularity overnight, which none of the pappies were able to.
Sure, we are bitter with MR Viswa over a ‘recent ‘controversy’ (if i may say so) regarding the removal of the speech @ LK school of Public Policy on TOC, but it is more like a ‘lovers quarrel’ which will take care of itself when this issue is blown over, because deep down we know that Mr Viswa was genuine when he made both the speeches, and that he will continue to be so in the future. No one has made such an impact on us up till now or even ‘moved’ us to this degree.
He could be ‘planted’ & all this could be a’ wayang’ with him as the’ lead actor’. Let it be, so what, the outcome will speak for itself when the time comes.
But, my guess is, Mr Viswa could be testing the ground just like the pappies may be ‘testing’ him too!
He may be using the ‘platform’ (given to him so willingly), to ‘understand’ Singaporeans better, what our million-dollar salaried ministers failed to do!
Whether he came in’ willingly’ or ‘was necessitated’, is of little importance to us.Now that he is here, he knows he needs to do -treading the ground cautiously without being ‘cornered’ or even being ‘checkmated’!
In his own words:
“Heroes are important, ………………… but dead heroes are of no use to anyone, at at least in the Singapore context.
A living hero?
Lets not forget, he is a strategist and must be a good one too, otherwise he wouldn’t have been chosen as a NMP by the REGIME!.
Don’t they always pick the best ones & turn them into goons!
But not this man, he knows his strategy, that is why he is so confident.
A leader in the making with the charisma of LKY 50 yrs ago(my parents used to ‘adore’ lky)-minus the aggression!
Maybe from now onwards, our politics will not be so boring anymore.
Let’s see what happens after 2 yrs……,
It ‘may’ be possible after his term, Mr Viswa may just resign from his NMP post & stand for elections as an Opposition & GARNER all our votes or chose to ‘join’ the pappies & lose our votes & trust completely, or even leave politics entirely!
Its either this or that or that, there is no ‘middle-path’ in politics!
My view is, instead of ‘brick-batting’ him, just because he is not taking our side, lets not doubt his sincerity.
We have been waiting for almost 50 yrs for dawn, what is another 2 yrs?
Lets wait & see what unfolds………
Let him do what he came to do, perhaps, he IS ‘playing’ our kind of music, with ‘subliminal messages’ we only need to ‘listen’…..
We can’t deny the fact that the NMPs will chosen by a selection committee that was 100% PAPy [ with the exception of the confused, ineffective, singlish-speaking LTK ]
Gone are the days when this selection committee would have chosen another Siew Kum Hong.
The present batch of NMPs, i am sure, were thoroughly vetted by the selection committee to make sure that deep inside they are all pro-PAP.
Therefore, i am thoroughly convinced that Visva Thamby ( Thamby in tamil means younger brother, not the old deragatory meaning LKY used where thamby means an odd-job worker in the office during the 1950s to the 1960s )
So we had the appearance of Thamby as an NMP in parliament.
So, like any self- respecting thamby, Thamby wanted to perform some heroics in parliament ( if you have seen tamil movies, you would know what i mean )
But unfortunately after 1 or 2 stunts Thamby had a change of heart, and decided to leave the heroics-bit out of his act. He remembered that he was very much obligated to his masters, otherwise his rice- bowl would have been smashed into smithereens.
So to cut a long story short, this is how i see it . in this saga of Thamby in parliament.
234) fffyugyut on September 1st, 2009 10.58 pm
“…if you are lawyer, people want to sue you also difficult to win you.”
So, why are so many lawyers not joining the opposition to help the country beef up our loyal opposition?
237) Self Preservation on September 2nd, 2009 10.45 am
“So, why are so many lawyers not joining the opposition to help the country beef up our loyal opposition?”
How about this explanation :
Regardless whether you are really holding the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth, you will definitely lost your case in the court of law in Singapore, if you are defending yourself against a certain god (you know who I refer to).
So what if many lawyers can articulate or defend their positions or views with the truth/fact, when up against a particular “wise” man there is only one napshot outcome in the court of law in Singapore.
Sometime, you could be haul to the court of law for a silly reason when the “wise” man deemed you as a threat, especially to his political idealogy/survival.
Does the explanation above answer your question? Hahaha……
That was why I said Viswa was a wise man…… Self Preservation indeed.
Loyal? Yes! Opposition? Dont play play OK!
A lover’s spat?……very innovative……
The NMP scheme is a throwback, a reversion to British colonial era.
When Singapore was a British Crown Colony, the colonialist had a system of appointing local representatives to its legislative council/assembly to stem the tide of growing resentment of the people against colonialism.
These “representatives” were invariably those who had benefited financially and materially from the oppressive colonial rule. They were hoisted by the British and their local lackeys as community leaders who could feel the pulse of the populace.
Now, after having turned the parliament into its rubber stamp, the PAP, in order to appease and check the resentment of the citizenry against its authoritarian rule wants to have NMPs, claiming that these people are non-partisan and objective.
But who appoints these NMPs and who heads the “selection” process?
Let’s not degenerate into feudal warp.
“So, why are so many lawyers not joining the opposition to help the country beef up our loyal opposition?”
These lawyers should join hand and seek the support from IBA to seek justice for all the victimized singaporeans from those corrupted elites. Without foreign and international support, no one can even touch any of those MIW as they’ve already build themselves a non-penetratable protection inside the country they rule.
43) tiredsingaporean
“These lawyers should join hand and seek the support from IBA to seek justice for all the victimized singaporeans from those corrupted elites”….
Do you really believe that ‘our lawyers’ would even ‘dream ‘ of doing such a thing for fellow singporeans?
Please don’t delude yourself.
Lawyers are also ‘elites’ , they only care for their kind.
The ones who dare will end up in IMH & made to look like psychos. This is
Singapore, get real!
It is the commoners like us who care & want something to be done, not the elites.
Did you ever come across any elite who has shown any concern for the unfortunate Singaporean up till now?
Elites live in their own world like our like our ministers, mps, nmps, you name it. They are well taken care of by our MIW…..perhaps we should start looking for MIB (Man In Black)! :)
If anything needs to be done, it is we, who have to do it, other that ‘ranting’ here & there, & waiting for some ‘heroic NMP’ be to to ‘save’ us!
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1002470/1/.html
“Many voters now tell us openly – “my family, three of us vote for you but two of us voted against you”. Just to let you know we want an opposition voice and we don’t want you to be so overwhelming. So in that case you may have a freak result and that worries me. So we have a president with blocking powers,” said Mr Lee.
Mr Lee said: “I spent 15 years thinking out these safeguards and finally persuaded my younger colleagues that we needed this because they can’t guarantee that they’ll each time provide a better team than the opposition, just because it has been done in the past. No problem in next election, but maybe after that – if we don’t find a good team in elections after that – we are at risk.”
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1002470/1/.html
Political leaders cannot be trained, but must be found, says hiding the man in white
Mr Lee said: “I spent 15 years thinking out these safeguards and finally persuaded my younger colleagues that we needed this because they can’t guarantee that they’ll each time provide a better team than the opposition, just because it has been done in the past. No problem in next election, but maybe after that – if we don’t find a good team in elections after that – we are at risk.”